I think it also makes sense to reorder the entire sequences- all 333 of them- in order from most valuable to least valuable, and perhaps make multiple different lists according to different values. That way, when someone feels like the last 20 or 40 have not been very helpful, that means the time is right to move on to other things, then and only then.
I think—and I’ve considered trying to do this partly in order to teach myself and get all the insights to sink in—that it would also be desirable to rewrite some or all of the sequences / write entirely new stuff inspired by them in simpler language, with a more neutral tone (Eliezer has a certain style that not everyone would appreciate) and mathematical parts made as visual and easy to follow as possible, for normal audiences who aren’t… well, nerds like the rest of us. I think improving the rationality of ordinary people would be worth it.
Seems like it could be a core LW book, just like how The Precipice was the big book for EA. I definitely think that, one way or another, the CFAR handbook should be taken into account (since it’s explicitly more optimized to train executives and other clients a wider variety of people vrom various backgrounds).
I made a ton of assumptions based off of this though, and I never checked to see whether the CFAR handbook was stated to help those particular people. So I retracted parts of my comment that were based on assumptions that I should have checked before stating that it was clearly for executives.
Ah wow, yeah as Zach notes that’s a totally different CFAR.
An important thing about the CFAR handbook is that it was mostly optimized as a companion to workshops. For a longtime, the first chapter in the CFAR handbook warned you “this was not actually designed to give you any particular experience, we have no idea what reading this book will do if not accompanied by a workshop.”
The current CFAR Handbook publishing that Duncan is doing has some additional thought put into it as a standalone series of essays, but I don’t think it’s optimized the way you’re imagining.
I think it also makes sense to reorder the entire sequences- all 333 of them- in order from most valuable to least valuable, and perhaps make multiple different lists according to different values. That way, when someone feels like the last 20 or 40 have not been very helpful, that means the time is right to move on to other things, then and only then.
I think—and I’ve considered trying to do this partly in order to teach myself and get all the insights to sink in—that it would also be desirable to rewrite some or all of the sequences / write entirely new stuff inspired by them in simpler language, with a more neutral tone (Eliezer has a certain style that not everyone would appreciate) and mathematical parts made as visual and easy to follow as possible, for normal audiences who aren’t… well, nerds like the rest of us. I think improving the rationality of ordinary people would be worth it.
Seems like it could be a core LW book, just like how The Precipice was the big book for EA. I definitely think that, one way or another, the CFAR handbook should be taken into account (since it’s
explicitlymore optimized to trainexecutives and other clientsa wider variety of people vrom various backgrounds).what leads you to think it’s optimized in this way?
I made a ton of assumptions based off of this though, and I never checked to see whether the CFAR handbook was stated to help those particular people. So I retracted parts of my comment that were based on assumptions that I should have checked before stating that it was clearly for executives.
Different CFAR!
Ah wow, yeah as Zach notes that’s a totally different CFAR.
An important thing about the CFAR handbook is that it was mostly optimized as a companion to workshops. For a longtime, the first chapter in the CFAR handbook warned you “this was not actually designed to give you any particular experience, we have no idea what reading this book will do if not accompanied by a workshop.”
The current CFAR Handbook publishing that Duncan is doing has some additional thought put into it as a standalone series of essays, but I don’t think it’s optimized the way you’re imagining.